Home › Research › Disparities
Relation of education and occupation-based socioeconomic status to incident Alzheimer's disease
Karp A, Kåreholt I, Qiu C, Bellander T, Winblad B, Fratiglioni L.. American journal of epidemiology, 2004-01-01
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
In this study, the authors evaluated whether the association between low educational level and increased risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia may be explained by occupation-based socioeconomic status (SES). A cohort of 931 nondemented subjects aged > or = 75 years from the Kungsholmen Project, Stockholm, Sweden, was followed for 3 years between 1987 and 1993. A total of 101 incident cases of dementia, 76 involving AD, were detected. Less-educated subjects had an adjusted relative risk of developing AD of 3.4 (95% confidence interval: 2.0, 6.0), and subjects with lower SES had an adjusted relative risk of 1.6 (95% confidence interval: 1.0, 2.5). When both education and SES were introduced into the same model, only education remained significantly associated with AD. Combinations of low education with low or high SES were associated with similar increased risks of AD, but well-educated subjects with low SES were not at high risk. Low SES at 20 years of age, even when SES was high at age 40 or 60 years, was associated with increased risk; however, this increase disappeared when education was entered into the model. In conclusion, the association between low education and increased AD risk was not mediated by adult SES or socioeconomic mobility. This suggests that early life factors may be relevant.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Karp, A., Kåreholt, I., Qiu, C., Bellander, T., Winblad, B., & Fratiglioni, L. (2004). Relation of education and occupation-based socioeconomic status to incident Alzheimer's disease. American journal of epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwh018
Vancouver
Karp A, Kåreholt I, Qiu C, Bellander T, Winblad B, Fratiglioni L. Relation of education and occupation-based socioeconomic status to incident Alzheimer's disease. American journal of epidemiology. 2004. doi:10.1093/aje/kwh018. PMID: 14718220.
BibTeX
@article{karp2004-14718220,
author = {Karp, A. and Kåreholt, I. and Qiu, C. and Bellander, T. and Winblad, B. and Fratiglioni, L.},
title = {{Relation of education and occupation-based socioeconomic status to incident Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {American journal of epidemiology},
year = {2004},
doi = {10.1093/aje/kwh018},
pmid = {14718220},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwh018}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- In this study, the authors evaluated whether the association between low educational level and increased risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia may be explained by occupation-based socioeconomic status (SES).
- When both education and SES were introduced into the same model, only education remained significantly associated with AD.
- Combinations of low education with low or high SES were associated with similar increased risks of AD, but well-educated subjects with low SES were not at high risk.
- Low SES at 20 years of age, even when SES was high at age 40 or 60 years, was associated with increased risk; however, this increase disappeared when education was entered into the model.
- In conclusion, the association between low education and increased AD risk was not mediated by adult SES or socioeconomic mobility.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →
Study details
- Participants101
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (American journal of epidemiology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2004 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 101 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 14718220) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 28 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Disparities
Also tagged “reserve”
208 studies in the library carry the topic tag “reserve”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 208 tagged studies.